REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ......It includes the annual report of the Community...

REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1999–2000 1

0. mdbc ar prelims.p65 3/11/00, 11:24 AM1

Murray–DarlingBasin Commission

To the parliaments of the Commonwealth of Australia,New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia andQueensland; the Legislative Assembly of the AustralianCapital Territory; and to the Australian community.

It includes the annual report of the CommunityAdvisory Committee.

1999–2000


Published by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission

Level 5

15 Moore Street

Canberra City ACT 2601

GPO Box 409

Canberra ACT 2601

Telephone: (02) 6279 0100

Facsimile: (02) 6248 8053

Email: [email protected]

Internet: http://www.mdbc.gov.au

© Murray-Darling Basin Commission 2000

This work is copyright. Photographs and cover artwork, and the MDBC logo, are not tobe reproduced or stored by any process without permission. However, text and othergraphics in this publication may be reproduced in whole or in part provided that theinformation is not sold or put to commercial use and its source (‘Murray-Darling BasinCommission Annual Report 1999–2000’) is acknowledged. Reproduction for otherpurposes is prohibited without the prior written permission of the Murray-Darling BasinCommission.

ISSN 1033–6745

Editing, design and layout: Green Words & Images, Canberra

Printing: Goanna Print


CONTE NTSAbout this report ................................................................................................................................ 1

Chief Executive’s overview ...............................................................................................................3

1. The Murray-Darling Basin Initiative ...................................................................................... 71.1 Ministerial Council ......................................................................................................... 81.2 Community Advisory Committee ............................................................................ 101.3 Role and operation of the Commission .................................................................. 10

2. Report of the Community Advisory Committee 1999–2000 ...................................... 172.1 Participation ................................................................................................................... 182.2 Strategic issues ............................................................................................................. 202.3 Communication ............................................................................................................ 24

3. Natural resources management ........................................................................................ 253.1 Vision for the Basin ...................................................................................................... 263.2 Major activities contributing to the Initiative ........................................................ 283.3 Delivering the Natural Resources Management Strategy

through the Basin Sustainability Program ............................................................ 493.4 Resourcing the Natural Resources Management Strategy ............................... 553.5 Outcomes of the Basin Sustainability Program .................................................. 60

4. Water resources and asset management ........................................................................ 754.1 Strategic directions and major activities ............................................................... 784.2 Water resources management .................................................................................864.3 Asset management ..................................................................................................... 101

5. Finance and human resources .......................................................................................... 1075.1 The 1999–2000 budget ............................................................................................ 1085.2 Financial statements ................................................................................................. 1095.3 The 2000–2001 budget ............................................................................................ 1095.4 Staff of the Commission ........................................................................................... 109

Financial statements ...................................................................................................................... 111

Appendix A: Membership of the Ministerial Council ............................................................ 137

Appendix B: Membership of the Community Advisory Committee ................................. 139

Appendix C: Membership of the Commission ....................................................................... 140

Appendix D: Membership of the project boards .................................................................... 141

Appendix E: Committees, working groups and otherbodies supporting the Commission’s work .......................................................... 142

Appendix F: Information available from the Murray-Darling Basin Commission ................................................................ 143

Glossary ............................................................................................................................................ 146

Index ................................................................................................................................................. 150


List of boxes, figures and tables

Box 1 Values .............................................................................................................................. 12Box 2 Commission projects during 1999–2000 ............................................................. 28Box 3 A new Integrated Catchment Management Policy

for the next decade .................................................................................................... 30Box 4 What is the cap? .......................................................................................................... 34Box 5 Barmah-Millewa Forest .............................................................................................. 41Box 6 Salinity Audit key points ........................................................................................... 43Box 7 Why is the Basin Sustainability Program important? .......................................49Box 8 Riverine environment ................................................................................................ 65

Figure 1 Governance of the Murray-Darling Basin Initiative ............................................... 9Figure 2 Natural resources management and administration

1999–2000 budget allocations ................................................................................ 15Figure 3 River Murray Water 1999–2000 budget allocations .......................................... 16Figure 4 Targets proposed for catchment health in the new

integrated catchment management framework ............................................... 29Figure 5 Principal functions of the Natural Resources Management

Strategy and their relation to investment or management programs .......... 51Figure 6 Catchment management regions in the Murray Darling Basin ..................... 54Figure 7 Volume of water (megalitres) permanently traded between

states as part of the pilot project for 1999–2000 ............................................. 69Figure 8 The River Murray system ............................................................................................77Figure 9 Flow to South Australia 1999–2000

(combined with salinity levels measured at Morgan) ....................................... 92Figure 10 Behaviour of major storages 1999–2000 ............................................................. 94

Table 1 Number of major strategies and plans identified in Basinregions, 1999–2000 .................................................................................................... 56

Table 2 Total proposed Basin Sustainability Program investmentby sub-program, 2000–2001 to 2002–2003 ........................................................ 56

Table 3 Total proposed Basin Sustainability Program investmentby key result area 2000–2001 to 2002–2003 ...................................................... 57

Table 4 Murray-Darling Basin Commission funding programs in 1999–2000 .......... 57Table 5 Strategic investigations and education investment in 1999–2000 .............. 58Table 6 Murray-Darling Basin Commission allocations under

the Murray-Darling 2001 Program in 1999–2000 .............................................. 59Table 7 State diversions .......................................................................................................... 90Table 8 Contributions of Contracting Governments and other

sources of funding ................................................................................................... 108Table 9 Staff structure ............................................................................................................. 110Table 10 Academic qualifications ........................................................................................... 110


1

ABOUT TH IS R E PORT

This report describes the objectives and significant achievements ofthe Murray-Darling Basin Commission during the 1999–2000financial year. Through the Chairperson of the Murray-Darling BasinMinisterial Council, it is presented for tabling before the parliamentsof the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia andQueensland, and the Legislative Assembly of the Australian CapitalTerritory.

The report is tabled in this way because the Commission wasestablished by a legal agreement passed by each of the parliaments(the Australian Capital Territory’s involvement is through amemorandum of understanding). The Commission is therefore aunique organisation, ‘owned’ by the six governments. It is an outcomeof the intention of the partner governments to have an organisationthat transcends the political boundaries between the Basin States andthe Australian Capital Territory so that the far-reaching Murray-Darling river catchments may be managed as effectively as possible.

The Commission has a role in undertaking works and measures at thedirection of the Ministerial Council and also in coordinating the effortsof the government partners to the Murray-Darling Basin Initiative. Thisannual report focuses primarily on those activities the Commissionhas carried out on behalf of the Ministerial Council in 1999–2000.Information on the 1999–2000 activities of the partners to theInitiative will be coordinated through the States’ annual reports to theCommission and the Ministerial Council, expected to be provided byearly 2001.

This annual report also incorporates the annual report of theMinisterial Council’s Community Advisory Committee, the primarycommunity body advising the Ministerial Council on natural resourcesmanagement issues in the Murray-Darling Basin.

3

The 1999–2000 year provided the opportunity to deliver on theinvestments made over the past 10 years to the Commission’sresearch program and its on-ground implementation activities. Majorinitiatives included the release of the Salinity Audit, the completion ofa Human Dimension Strategy, a review of the Cap on water diversionsafter five years of operation, and full activation of the 10 projectboards that drive public policy development within the Murray-Darling Basin Initiative.

The project boards were established after a major re-engineeringreview of the Commission and are now functioning well. Majoradvances are occurring in several areas, including salinity, the Cap,human dimensions and fish management.

During the year, Dr Roy Green replaced Mr Michael Taylor who wasacting as President of the Commission. Dr Green, a former ChiefExecutive of the CSIRO, is also Chairman of the National Land andWater Audit.

Specific issues that warrant mention include:

• The release of the Salinity Audit. This audit indicates the scale ofthe issues that we will confront over the next 20, 50 and 100 yearsas we tackle the insidious problems of salinity. Aggregating thedata provided by the States to produce a complete Basin-widepicture was a major achievement. The response to the audit hasbeen positive, with governments and affected communitiesconsidering its implications carefully and working towards astrategic response.

• The release of the Human Dimension Strategy was anothermilestone for the Commission. After 10 years of concentrating onthe biophysical aspects of the Basin, it has been recognised that inorder to bring about sustained change, we need to have coherentstrategies in place to support our communities in transition.

CH I E F EX ECUTIVE ’SOVE RV I EW

THE MURRAY-DARLING BASIN COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT 1999–20004

• The Community Advisory Committee (CAC) continued to provideleadership and direction to the Murray-Darling Basin Initiative. Membersof the committee participated in a workshop with the Commission andwith the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council. Major concerns forthe CAC were the review of the Cap, the next generation of integratedcatchment management and the Salinity Audit.

• During the year the Commission invested $11.95 million in a broad rangeof projects in the research, investigations and education areas needed tounderpin public policy development in natural resources managementand its implementation.

• The Murray-Darling 2001 project under the Natural Heritage Trustcontinued to support on-ground activity with a total of $76.6 million(50% from the Commonwealth and 50% from the Basin States) beinginvested in projects in the Basin. This program continues to be thecornerstone of our on-ground effort to sustain the Basin’s naturalresource base.

• The pilot interstate water trading process went into its second year andfunctioned successfully. Since the project began a total of 9373megalitres has been traded permanently between the states inaccordance with specific conditions to ensure environmental protection.

• Major works continued at Hume Dam to ensure its long-term safety andintegrity. The program has one more year to run and is proceedingsatisfactorily.

• Measures to protect cultural heritage values at Lake Victoria continuedto work effectively. Lake Victoria was lowered over the winter of 1999 toenable a complete survey of the archaeological material in its bed. Whileimportant material was found, no further significant Aboriginal burialswere located.

• During the 1999–2000 water year, allocations for New South Wales (but notSouth Australia or Victoria) were significantly restricted. This was caused byNew South Wales having lower reserves than Victoria at the start of theirrigation season and continuing dry conditions through the year.

• Determination of how best to modify the navigable passes at the lowerMurray locks and weirs to reduce costs and improve safety of theseageing assets continued during the year. A range of communitymeetings provided guidance on what might be possible. The issue of fishpassage at these weirs was also considered.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S OVERVIEW 5

• The Murray mouth was again under stress as a result of prolongedperiods of low flow. The mouth did not close but a large amount of sandis now stored in the Coorong and Goolwa channels. This will requiresignificant and extended periods of high flows to be flushed out.

• The Commission completed its draft Corporate Plan. This plan includes aset of behaviours to guide future interaction between the community,agencies and governments. The behaviours that have been identifiedinclude courage, inclusiveness, commitment, respect, flexibility,practicability and mutual obligation.

• Another major activity for the Commission has been to review its RiverMurray modelling environment. For the last 15 years this environmenthas been the heart of the Initiative. It has enabled us to providepredictive capacity to the Commission, and also to audit and assesswater availability and salinity. Mr Andrew Close undertook a majorreview of contemporary river models from around the world with a viewto guiding the Commission into the next generation of modelling. Thiswill be an important part of Commission activities over the nextfew years.

The staff of the Commission made an impressive contribution during theyear, providing support to their colleagues in the Commonwealth andStates in their efforts to achieve sustainable management of the Murray-Darling Basin. They have my personal thanks and I look forward to anotherproductive year.

DJ BLACKMOREChief Executive18 October 2000

7

TH E MU R R AY-DAR LI N GBAS I N IN ITIATIVE

The junction of the Murray and Darling rivers. Through the Murray-DarlingBasin Agreement, the six governments with jurisdictions in the Basin andtheir agencies are working with the community to develop a balancebetween maintaining and developing economic productivity andenvironmentally sustainable natural resources management throughout thecatchments of the two rivers.

The Murray-Darling Basin Initiative is a partnership between sixgovernments and the community which was established to giveeffect to the 1992 Murray-Darling Basin Agreement. The purpose ofthe Agreement is:

…to promote and coordinate effectiveplanning and management for theequitable, efficient and sustainable use ofthe water, land and other environmentalresources of the Murray-Darling Basin.

1


In its early years the Initiative focused on promoting the principles ofintegrated catchment management and the development of jointcommunity and government structures. These have remained keymechanisms for working to achieve sustainable use of the Basin’s naturalresources. More recently, emphasis has been placed on:

• the development and implementation of strategic, large-scaleintegrated catchment management plans;

• concentrating resources in the areas of greatest need; and

• establishing an integrated catchment management framework that willhelp governments and communities better address issues such asdryland salinity over the next decade.

The Initiative brings together affected communities and the governmentsof the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia,Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). The overallgovernance of the Initiative is shown in Figure 1 and described in thefollowing sections.

1.1 MINISTERIAL COUNCIL

The Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council is the primary bodyresponsible for providing the policy and direction needed to implement theMurray-Darling Basin Initiative. The Council’s main functions are:

• to consider and determine major policy issues concerning the use of theBasin’s land, water and other environmental resources; and

• to develop, consider and authorise (as appropriate) measures to achievethe purpose of the Agreement.

The Ministerial Council comprises the ministers holding land, water andenvironment portfolios within the governments of New South Wales,Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and the Commonwealth. Up to threeministers from each government may sit on the Council. The ACTparticipates in the Initiative via a memorandum of understanding. Thememorandum allows the ACT to take part in planning and management ofBasin environmental resources, but not to be involved in watermanagement of the River Murray system. The memorandum provides foran ACT Government minister to be a non-voting member of theMinisterial Council.

Names of members of the Ministerial Council are shown in Appendix A.

THE MURRAY-DARLING BASIN INITIATIVE 9

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN MINISTERIAL COUNCILMinisters holding land, water and environment portfolios in each

contracting government(Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, ACT)*

PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

WATERBUSINESS

BASIN SUSTAINABILTY

Figure 1: Governance of the Murray-Darling Basin Initiative

COMMUNITYADVISORY

COMMITTEEChair; catchment and

special interestrepresentatives

NSWDepartment of

Land andWater

Conservation

NSWAgriculture

EnvironmentProtectionAuthority

VICTORIADepartment

of NaturalResources

andEnvironment

Goulburn-MurrayWater

SOUTHAUSTRALIA

Department ofPrimary

Industries andResources SA

Department ofWater Resources

South AustralianWater

Corporation

Department ofEnvironmentand Heritage

QUEENSLANDDepartment

of NaturalResources

EnvironmentalProtection

Agency

QueenslandParks and

Wildlife Service

ACTEnvironment

ACT

COMMONWEALTHDepartment of

Agriculture,Fisheries and

Forestry

Department ofEnvironment and

Heritage

RiverMurrayWater

AdvisoryBoard

WaterPolicy

Committee

FinanceCommittee

COMMISSION OFFICE: TECHNICAL ANDSUPPORT STAFF

* Participation by the Australian Capital Territory is via a memorandum ofunderstanding (see section 1.1).

Projectboards

COMMUNITY

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN COMMISSION

BasinSustainability

ProgramWorking

Group

WORKING GROUPS

Independent president; commissioners/deputycommissioners representing each contracting

government (senior executives from land, waterand environment agencies)*


1.2 COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The Community Advisory Committee (CAC) is an integral part of theInitiative and reflects the importance of the community–governmentpartnership. At its first meeting in 1986 the Ministerial Council establishedthe CAC to advise the Council and to provide a two-way channel ofcommunication between the Council and the Basin community. Thisdecision was based on the ministers’ earlier recognition of the need for‘effective community participation in the resolution of the water, land andenvironmental problems in the Basin’.

The terms of reference of the CAC are to advise the Ministerial Council andCommission on:

• natural resources management issues referred to CAC by the MinisterialCouncil or Commission; and

• the views of the Basin’s communities on matters identified by the CACas being of concern.

The CAC comprises a chairperson and 26 members. Twenty-one membersare state representatives chosen on a catchment or regional basis – sevenfrom New South Wales, five from Victoria, four from South Australia, fourfrom Queensland and one from the ACT. Additionally, there is arepresentative from each of four special-interest ‘peak organisations’, andan appointee to provide an Aboriginal perspective on natural resourcesmanagement issues.

The CAC works closely with the Ministerial Council and Commission – theCAC’s chairperson attends all their meetings. CAC members also activelyparticipate in a wide range of Commission committees and workinggroups.

The names of the members of the Community Advisory Committee duringthe year are listed in Appendix B.

The Committee’s contribution is discussed in detail in Chapter 2.

1.3 ROLE AND OPERATION OF THE COMMISSION

The Murray-Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) is the executive arm of theMinisterial Council and is responsible for managing the River Murray andthe Menindee Lakes system of the lower Darling River, and for advising theMinisterial Council on matters related to the use of the water, land andother environmental resources of the Murray-Darling Basin.


The responsibilities of the Commission are:

• to advise the Ministerial Council in relation to the planning,development and management of the Basin’s natural resources;

• to assist Council in developing measures for the equitable, efficient andsustainable use of the Basin’s natural resources;

• to coordinate the implementation of, or where directed by Council, toimplement those measures; and

• to give effect to any policy or decision of the Ministerial Council.

In meeting its responsibilities, the Commission has dual functions. Thefirst is to develop a Basin-wide framework for the sustainablemanagement of the Basin’s water, land and other environmentalresources. The second is to actively participate in the Initiative throughoperating the River Murray system and managing Basin-wide policy,planning and knowledge-generation activities.

The Commission comprises an independent president, two commissionersfrom each contracting government and a representative of the ACTGovernment. Apart from the president, commissioners are normally chiefexecutives and senior executives of the agencies responsible forstewardship of land, water and the environment. The memorandum ofunderstanding for the participation of the ACT Government (see section 1.1)provides for a non-voting ‘representative’ from the territory to participate inmeetings of the Commission. The chairperson of the CAC also attends allCommission meetings.

Names of members of the Commission are shown in Appendix C.

Achieving an outcome of equitable, efficient and sustainable use of theBasin’s environmental resources requires coordinated effort by the sixgovernments which are partners to the Murray-Darling Basin Agreementand close cooperation with the Basin community. The Commission activelysupports a government–community partnership and relies on it toimplement effective natural resources planning and management in theBasin. This cooperative approach brings to participants and end-users thebenefit of shared concerns and expertise, jointly developed and integratedsolutions, and avoids duplication of effort. In November 1999 theCommission and the CAC developed a set of values (see Box 1) to underpintheir partnership and all Commission activities. The Commission was due toformally adopt these values in July 2000.


Box 1: Values

Courage: We will take a visionary approach, provideleadership and be prepared to make difficultdecisions.

Inclusiveness: We will build relationships based on trust andsharing, considering the needs of futuregenerations, and working together in a truepartnership; we will engage all partners, ensuringthat partners have the capacity to be fullyengaged.

Commitment: We will act with passion and decisiveness, takingthe long-term view and aiming for stability in ourdecisions; we will take a Basin perspective and anon-partisan approach to managing the Basin.

Respect: We will tolerate different views; act with integrity,openness and honesty; be fair and credible; useresources equitably; respect the environment;share knowledge and information; respect eachother and acknowledge the reality of each other’ssituation.

Flexibility: We will accept reform where it is needed, bewilling to change and continuously improve ouractions.

Practicability: We will choose practicable, long-term outcomes,select viable solutions to achieve these outcomes,and ensure that all partners have the capacity toplay their agreed part.

Mutual obligation: We will share responsibility and accountability; wewill act responsibly, with fairness and justice; wewill support each other through necessary change.


Commission activities associated with natural resources management inthe Basin are outlined in Chapter 3. All activities associated with managingand distributing River Murray and lower Darling River water to New SouthWales, Victoria and South Australia consistent with the Agreement (that is,the operation of River Murray Water as a separate internal business divisionof the Commission) are set out in Chapter 4.

During 1999–2000 the Commission worked with its partner governmentsand the CAC to develop a Corporate Plan to provide a framework for itsactivities over the next three years. The plan, to be formally considered bythe Commission in July 2000, describes outputs in four areas: waterbusiness, natural resources business, partner relations and businessadministration. Future annual reports will report progress toward achievingthese outputs, using performance measures and milestones specified inthe plan.

1.3.1 PROGRAM SUPPORT AND ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES

During 1999–2000 the Commission was advised by 10 project boards,comprising commissioners or deputy commissioners, with CAC memberson two of the boards. Further details of these projects are provided insections 3.2 and 4.1. Names of members of the project boards are shown inAppendix D.

The Commission continued to be advised directly by five high-levelcommittees in 1999–2000, as described below.

Natural resources management

1. The Water Policy Committee provided policy advice on water issues,including implementation of the Council of Australian Governments’water reform agenda, the Cap on growth in water diversions, waterquantity, allocation and sharing, and interstate trading.

2. The Basin Sustainability Program Working Group provided advice on thenatural resource management objectives of the Basin SustainabilityProgram, focusing on strategic priorities for knowledge generation andfor investment in on-ground works and measures.

3. The Integrated Catchment Management Taskforce advised theCommission on approaches and priorities for integrated catchmentmanagement in the Basin over the next decade.


Water resources and assets management

4. The River Murray Water Advisory Board advised the Commission on theoperation of River Murray Water, an internal business unit of theCommission. River Murray Water is responsible for directing theoperation, management and renewal of River Murray Water and lowerDarling system water management works and the joint salt interceptionschemes of the Murray. The prime function is to provide shares of waterunder the Agreement. The Advisory Committee includes representativesfrom four governments and an independent business expert. It ischaired by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission’s president.

Finances

5. The Finance Committee advised on budgetary and other financial issues.

Following a review of its committees and project boards in late 1999, theCommission established two networks in March 2000 to provide high-levelstrategic advice. The Network for Water Management will provideleadership on the resolution of strategic water management issuesbetween jurisdictions. The Network for Integrated Catchment Managementwill provide leadership on the development of principles, policies andstrategies to progress the evolution of integrated catchment managementin the Basin. Both networks will also establish and direct the work ofrelevant project boards or other committees and ensure their activitiesare integrated.

The project boards and the above five bodies were supported by 14 workinggroups that brought together technical and specialist expertise fromagencies of the partner governments and representatives of the CAC. Allcommittees, working groups and other bodies supporting the Commission’swork are listed in Appendix E.

The Commission Office provides the technical, policy formulation,secretariat and administrative services required to administer theAgreement and to deliver the Commission’s programs. It is responsible forcoordinating the implementation of the Commission’s Natural ResourcesManagement Strategy and the Basin Sustainability Program. The Officeincludes River Murray Water which manages water resources and assets(see Chapter 4).


1.3.2 POLICY AND PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

Policies and programs of the Ministerial Council and the Commission areimplemented by the Chief Executive of the Commission Office and bycommissioners representing the partner governments. In 1999–2000 theCommission’s programs were supported by funds from the contractinggovernments in proportions approved by the Ministerial Council, as shownin Table 8 (section 5.1). Funds are allocated to states for agreed Initiativeprograms in accordance with estimates approved by the MinisterialCouncil.

Natural resources management and administration

The Commission has delegated to the Chief Executive those expenditure,employment and contracting powers necessary to operate the CommissionOffice. Commissioners representing the partner governments havedelegated powers from the Commission to approve expenditure ofdesignated funds consistent with the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement.

The 1999–2000 budget allocations for the sustainable management of theBasin’s natural resources and administration and other support are shownin Figure 2.

Figure 2: Natural resources management and administration 1999–2000budget allocations

$’000

Natural resources management

Strategic program development 7 003

Strategic investigations and education 8 450

Investigations and construction 1 270

Communications and community participation 503

Administration and support 4110

Total 21 336


Water resources and asset management (River Murray Water)

The Commission has delegated to the General Manager, River MurrayWater, appropriate powers for water management and asset managementfunctions assigned to River Murray Water under its operating authority. Inexercising the delegated powers, the General Manager must consult withthe River Murray Water Advisory Board particularly in relation to policymatters.

The 1999–2000 budget allocations for water business are shown inFigure 3.

Figure 3: River Murray Water 1999 – 2000 budget allocations

$’000

Recurrent expenditure

Water storage and supply 14 192

Salinity mitigation 2 493

Navigation 958

Recreation, tourism and other 523

Investigations and construction 17 613

Total 35 779

17

The Murray-Darling Basin Community Advisory Committee is thepeak community body advising the Murray-Darling BasinMinisterial Council and Commission on issues related to thesustainable management of the Basin’s natural resources.

The Community Advisory Committee (CAC) met on five occasionsduring the year: at three formal meetings, a joint CAC–MDBCworkshop and a joint meeting with the Ministerial Council.

RE PORT O F TH ECOM M U N ITY ADV ISORYCOM M ITTE E 1999–2000

A community group inspecting a revegetation project. The CommunityAdvisory Committee provides advice to the Commission and the MinisterialCouncil regarding community perspectives and the development of aneffective partnership between the community and governments. During theyear the committee played a major role in the preparation of the IntegratedCatchment Management Policy Statement (to be submitted to theMinisterial Council in August 2000).

2


The CAC’s chairperson attended all Ministerial Council and Commissionmeetings during the year, and CAC members participated in meetings andworkshops of many other Commission committees. During 1999–2000, theCAC focused on key strategic issues agreed in its work plan, and madesignificant contributions to both policies and programs.

2.1 PARTICIPATION

Joint CAC–MDBC workshop

Following a successful workshop in 1998, the CAC and the Murray-DarlingBasin Commission held a second workshop in November 1999 whichfocused on:

• identifying the core values that underpin how the Initiative mustoperate; and

• articulating the resultant necessary behaviours.

The workshop considered how to move forward in integrated catchmentmanagement and, in this context, the implications of applying the values tobehaviours, roles, responsibilities and relationships.

The CAC values these joint meeting opportunities to develop respect andtrust between community and government. The agreed values andbehaviours are now being used as a practical outcome of the workshop, andwill need continued focus to ensure they are applied. The values arecourage, inclusiveness, commitment, respect, honesty, flexibility,practicability and mutual obligation.

Joint CAC–Ministerial Council meeting

In March 2000 the first joint meeting of the Community AdvisoryCommittee and the Ministerial Council was held. This meeting provided anopportunity to develop the relationship between the CAC and theMinisterial Council at a time of considerable change in the practice ofnatural resource management in the Basin. After hearing four perspectivesfrom around the Basin (upland, irrigation, downstream and theenvironment), ministers and CAC members discussed the following issues:

• the impediments to taking an integrated Basin-wide approach ratherthan a parochial view;

• the impediments to using precise targets and monitoring rather thanacts of faith to manage landscapes;

19REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1999–2000

• investment in human and financial resources to achieve outcomes;

• long-term investment and commitment; and

• roles or responsibilities in governance and partnerships.

The ministers agreed that the opportunity of an annual joint meetingshould be pursued.

Murray-Darling Basin Commission processes

CAC members provided advice from a community perspective atCommission forums, committees and working groups throughout the year.The CAC expanded its participation in Commission processes through theinclusion of representatives on steering committees and taskforcesestablished as part of Commission projects, including for the Basin SalinityStrategy, Environmental Flows and Water Quality. The CAC now has threerepresentatives on the Basin Salinity Strategy Taskforce, indicating theimportance of this issue to the community, and ensuring a communityperspective in the development of the strategy.

The Basin Sustainability Program Working Group now includes one CACrepresentative who provided input to:

• cross-sectoral issues;

• the continued development of the catchment-based approach forintegrated action plans;

• development of three-year rolling plans as the investment basis for theBasin; and

• the Strategic Investigations and Education Program to support on-ground needs.

CAC members also actively participated in the Dryland, Irrigation, Riverineand Communication and Human Dimension Issues Working Groups.

Strategic Investigations and Education Program annual forum

In August 1999, 12 CAC members attended a forum about the Commission’sStrategic Investigations and Education Program. The CAC supports thisknowledge-generation role, particularly with its focus on on-groundcommunity needs. The successful dissemination and adoption of StrategicInvestigations and Education Program outcomes, and recognition of theneed for community participation in the development and conduct ofindividual projects, remain a focus for the CAC. A comprehensive report


providing feedback on the merits, or otherwise, of the current projects wasprepared from an end-user perspective (that is, the community). The mostsignificant project in the CAC’s view was the Riverine Management andRehabilitation Scoping Study. Other highly rated projects were:

• Transfer and Adoption of Best Management Practice (Irrigation);

• Structural Adjustment in Irrigated Broad-Acre Farming;

• Managing Total Grazing Pressure in the Mulga-Lands;

• Management of Key Native Grasses; and

• Communicating over the Catchment – Interactive Satellite StudentConversation Conferences.

2.2 STRATEGIC ISSUES

The CAC’s work plan addresses four key strategic issues: the humandimension (which includes the vision for sustainable integrated catchmentmanagement); basin salinity management (including the review of theSalinity and Drainage Strategy); management of the Cap on diversions; andongoing implementation of the Basin Sustainability Program. Other issuesidentified in the work plan are floodplain management, including cross-border issues, and operational issues such as CAC involvement in thedevelopment and review of various Commission strategies, andinvolvement in appropriate Commission working groups. Further detail onthese issues follow.

The human dimension

Two CAC members participated on the board for the Human DimensionProject (formerly known as the Initiative Operating Environment Project).Other members were also involved in the development of the HumanDimension Strategy which was approved by the Commission in November1999 (see section 3.2.2). The Committee continued to advise the MinisterialCouncil on the importance to the Initiative of this strategy.

In response to a request from the CAC chairperson, each of the Basin statesagreed to sponsor a CAC member to participate in the internationallandcare conference, ‘Society and Resource Management’, held inMelbourne in March. This was a unique and valuable opportunity for theCAC to focus on effective long-term solutions to resource management


issues at an interdisciplinary forum. The CAC would like to record itsappreciation to the New South Wales Department of Land and WaterConservation, the Victorian Department of Natural Resources andEnvironment, the then South Australian Department for Environment,Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs, and the Queensland Department of NaturalResources for their support.

Integrated catchment management

The CAC was intensively involved in the development of a new frameworkfor integrated catchment management in the Basin over the next decade(see section 3.2.1). It has identified two significant issues which it considersneed to be recognised: the involvement of local government in naturalresource management as the third tier of government and with statutoryresponsibility for land use planning; and the inclusion of terrestrialbiodiversity as a Basin priority, given the inter-jurisdictional requirementsfor effective land and water management.

Basin salinity management

In August 1999 the CAC convened a basin salinity management workshopto better understand dryland salinity. Presentations covered:

• the scale of the salinity hazard for the Murray-Darling Basin;

• the scale of revegetation required to address dryland salinity;

• modelling the impact of farming systems on dryland salinity;

• tools and technology, such as satellite imagery, to monitor salt trends;and

• the scope for airborne geophysics in measuring salt hazard.

The workshop considered the costs of resource degradation to agricultureand biodiversity and the costs of dryland salinity; why banks need to beinvolved in management; and economic and institutional arrangements formanaging dryland salinity. The CAC then focused on three issues:

• how the Commission can better use its tools and techniques to helpcommunities plan and make decisions at the Basin and catchment level;

• the key cost issues to consider in developing options for salinitymanagement; and

• options for salinity management.


This workshop enhanced the CAC’s understanding of the salinity hazard,and enabled effective participation of CAC members in the Basin SalinityStrategy Taskforce during the development of options and a salinitymanagement strategy.

The CAC recognises that land retirement is a difficult issue. Nevertheless, ithas advised the Ministerial Council that land retirement and ongoingstewardship need to be given serious consideration by governments andcommunities. In addition, long-term management needs to address specificgains and objectives.

Management of the Cap on diversion of water from the Basin’s rivers

The CAC, via its catchment and special interest representatives, invitedcommunity response to the Ministerial Council’s review of the operation ofthe Cap and Schedule F of the Agreement. The CAC provided acomprehensive submission to the review across all topics on whichfeedback was sought (see section 3.2.4). The CAC was then given theopportunity of commenting on the draft Overview Report before it waspresented to the Ministerial Council, and made some significantsuggestions.

Implementation of the Basin Sustainability Program

The community, through its Catchment Committees, continued to play anintegral role in the preparation of the community–state three-year rollingplans which enabled the preparation of a Basin Investment Plan for1999–2000 to 2001–2002 (see section 3.3.2). The Commission providedresources during the year to assist Catchment Committees in thepreparation of input for the three-year rolling plans; this was recognised asinvaluable by the CAC and the Catchment Committees.

The CAC continued its consideration of issues relevant to delivery of theIrrigation, Dryland and Riverine Sub-Programs of the Basin SustainabilityProgram. In relation to the Irrigation Sub-Program, the CAC advised theMinisterial Council of its concerns about the availability of information tomeasure performance, the status of planning for best practice in irrigationdrainage design and construction, and the adequacy of drainage waterquality monitoring programs. In response to this advice, the Commission iscollaborating in a joint project considering broader water qualitymanagement frameworks at a state and regional level; water quality andflow monitoring arrangements related to surface drainage and the


management responses to that monitoring; and surface drainage activityin New South Wales.

The CAC supported the Commission’s new targeted approach for Murray-Darling 2001 funding (see section 3.4), but expressed concern at the startof the application period about transparency of process, adequacy ofcommunity involvement, and data and information for decisions ontargeted priorities. CAC members were involved in meetings of the BasinSustainability Program Working Group where individual projects wereassessed.

Snowy Scheme developments and environmental flows

Proposed changes to water release rules, which would result fromcorporatisation of the Snowy Scheme, have the potential to impact on theBasin and were thus of concern to the CAC. It advised the MinisterialCouncil that this issue has the potential to divide communities and is veryimportant to Murray-Darling Basin communities, particularly in the Murray,Murrumbidgee, and lower Darling catchments. The CAC is uncertainwhether the water savings being advocated are achievable and believesthat other options may need to be considered. The CAC also advised theMinisterial Council that increased environmental flows to the Snowy Rivershould not jeopardise the integrity of the Murray-Darling Basin Cap andexisting environmental flow arrangements in the Basin.

Two CAC members, including the chairperson, are representing the interestsof the community on the Environmental Flows Project Board.

Cultural heritage

In September 1999 the Ministerial Council approved changes to the BasinSustainability Program, including a new key result area for cultural heritage.It also agreed on a new objective regarding Aboriginal involvement. Thisfollowed earlier CAC advice to the Council on the importance of Indigenouscommunities in the Basin being a part of the Initiative. In March 2000 theMinisterial Council agreed that the Indigenous Land Corporation would beinvited to be the peak special-interest group responsible for nominating anAboriginal representative to the CAC. As the CAC has not had the benefit ofan Aboriginal member during most of 1999–2000, it has not been able toprogress consideration of issues relating to Aboriginal involvement innatural resource management. The CAC did, however, reiterate to theMinisterial Council the importance of Aboriginal representation oncatchment committees.


National Natural Resource Management Policy Statement

The CAC provided advice on the proposed directions and approaches of theNational Natural Resource Management Policy Statement and processes forpublic consultation. The document, Managing Natural Resources in RuralAustralia for a Sustainable Future, was released for comment in December1999. Catchment Committees were recognised as priority targets forconsultation on the draft document. Many members of the CAC, plus theCAC itself, made submissions to the Commonwealth on the paper.

2.3 COMMUNICATION

Newscan

The CAC continued preparation and distribution of its weekly press clippingservice, Newscan, which provides wide-ranging perspectives on naturalresource management issues across the Basin.

Curlew

Three editions of the CAC’s newsletter, Curlew, were produced anddistributed widely throughout the Basin. Each edition varied in its contentbetween:

• issues relevant to the various catchments in the Basin;

• Commission programs and recent publications; and

• information on Committee members so the community is aware of itsrepresentatives.

Internet

The CAC has a page on the Commission’s web site, and an increasingnumber of CAC members have internet connections which provide avaluable and rapid method of communication.

25

NATU RAL R ESOU RCESMANAG E M E NT

The task of the Commission is to implement the Murray-DarlingBasin Agreement. The primary objective of the Agreement is:

…to foster joint action to achieve thesustainable use of water, land and otherenvironmental resources of the Basin forthe national benefit of present and futuregenerations.

The Natural Resources Management Strategy, endorsed by theMinisterial Council in 1990, established the community–governmentpartnership and an integrated catchment management approach as

The Murray-Darling Basin Salinity Audit, released in October 1999, predictedthat in the coming decades extensive salinisation of areas cleared fordryland farming during the last 150 years would occur. This salinisation willhave serious consequences for agricultural productivity, built infrastructure,the environment and river water quality. Preparation of a SalinityManagement Strategy (for submission to the Ministerial Council in August2000) to respond to the challenge was a major activity during the year.

3


the foundations for natural resources management in the Basin. TheNatural Resources Management Strategy provided the strategic frameworkfor the 1990s. During this period the Commission developed strategies forthe integrated management of the Basin’s natural resources on acatchment basis.

The Commission and the Community Advisory Committee (CAC)acknowledge that the challenge for the next decade is to direct theevolution of integrated catchment management and the community–government partnership in a way that facilitates sustainable managementof natural resources and the development of viable regional communitiesthroughout the Basin.

3.1 VISION FOR THE BASIN

During 1999–2000 the Murray-Darling Basin Commission has focused ondeveloping the next stage of the Murray-Darling Basin Initiative. A primaryfocal point of its work has been the development of a policy on integratedcatchment management. It has concentrated on major policy objectivesagreed upon by the Ministerial Council that gave key strategic directions forintegrated catchment management, most notably Basin-wide salinitycontrol and sustainable rivers management. These have been prepared inparallel with strategies for communication and the human dimension,including cultural change to strengthen community–governmentpartnerships, and a proposed strategy for native fish management.

Consequently, the Initiative is now set for a new decade of policyachievement. Significantly, under the proposed Integrated CatchmentManagement Policy, natural resource management in the Basin will beconsistent with the principles laid down under the draft nationalframework released by the Commonwealth in December 1999.

Throughout the year the Commission worked closely with the CAC indeveloping the Integrated Catchment Management Policy and otherpolicies and strategies for consideration by the Ministerial Council.

The new Integrated Catchment Management Policy will augment andinterpret the Natural Resources Management Strategy that has providedthe high level philosophical framework for policy and implementation overthe past decade. The Integrated Catchment Management Policy will

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 27

support the continuing evolution of catchment managementarrangements for the Murray-Darling River valleys, as well as the Basin as awhole, and, for the first time, proposes the principle of catchment targetsand accountability arrangements to set a floor for catchment health. It willtake account of water quantity and quality concerns and promote the long-term protection of the Basin’s riverine and terrestrial environments.

The Basin Salinity Management Strategy has been developed in response toa Basin-wide Salinity Audit. Developed so as to be consistent with theIntegrated Catchment Management Statement, the Salinity ManagementStrategy proposes to implement:

• the principle of water quality targets for the Basin’s tributary rivers;

• accountability arrangements for offsetting current actions likely to leadto further salinity; and

• measures to more effectively counter past salinity.

The Salinity Management Strategy will direct tangible implementation ofintegrated catchment management. It targets irrigation and drylandsalinity and supports the broader integrated catchment managementprocess at state and regional levels.

During 1999–2000, a review of the operations of the Cap on waterdiversions after five years of implementation was conducted and releasedin draft form for public comment. This was in accordance with the originaldecision of Council made at the time of the introduction of the Cap. Whilethe draft review found that the Cap was an important initiative to protectthe longer-term security of consumptive use of water, it also concluded thatits current level, set valley by valley, is not necessarily the right level requiredto ensure the sustainability of the Basin’s riverine environments. As aconsequence, the Council agreed to the conceptual development of aSustainable Rivers Audit to support and better inform the furtherdevelopment of an improved balance between consumptive use and theprotection of river environments, and to provide a basic framework for riverhealth monitoring into the future. This will be done with the best scienceavailable combined with thorough community evaluation.

While developing these initiatives during the year, the CAC and theCommission forged closer working relationships. In late 1999 they held ajoint workshop to reach a common understanding of the values needed inthe new statement on integrated catchment management. In addition, the


CAC provided increased levels of representation on the various projectboards and taskforces advancing the major policy initiatives. It alsoconducted its own workshops to provide direct advice about these policydevelopments. The result has been a significant strengthening inunderstanding and communication between the Commission and the CAC.

3.2 MAJOR ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTING TO THE INITIATIVE

Ten high-level project boards operated during the year. Their task was toprovide direction for strategic projects (see Box 2) and ensure that theiroutcomes addressed the key natural resource management issues in theBasin in an integrated way.

Box 2: Commission projects during 1999–2000

• Basin Salinity Management Strategy

• Communication Strategy

• Environmental Flow Management and Water QualityObjectives for the River Murray

• Floodplain Management

• Human Dimension Strategy

• Lake Victoria Cultural Heritage

• Mitta Mitta Ex Gratia Payments

• Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy

• Murray-Darling Basin Fish Management

• Pilot Interstate Water Trading

• Review of the Operation of the Cap


Progress achieved on these and other projects during the year is outlinedbelow. Two projects associated with water resource management (LakeVictoria and Mitta Mitta) are described in Chapter 4.

3.2.1 THE INTEGRATED CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT POLICYFOR 2001–2010

The proposed Integrated Catchment Management Policy (see Box 3) wasdeveloped during the year by a taskforce with representatives from thepartner governments and the CAC, and included workshopping somematerial with a larger group of CAC members. The Commission willconsider the draft Integrated Catchment Management Policy in July prior toits submission to the Ministerial Council in August 2000 for subsequentpublic release and three months of public consultation and receipt ofsubmissions.

The policy is consistent with the policy directions of the Commonwealth’sdiscussion paper Managing Natural Resources in Rural Australia for aSustainable Future. It is also intended to be compatible with policydirections arising from Council of Australian Governments’ consideration ofnatural resources management that is currently under way. Many of thecomponents of the proposed Integrated Catchment Management Policyalso address the recommendations of the mid-term review of the NaturalHeritage Trust. Once agreed, the Integrated Catchment Management Policywill set the directions for more detailed Commission strategies to address

Figure 4: Targets proposed for catchment health in the new integrated catchmentmanagement framework

WATER QUALITY• SALINITY

• NUTRIENTS

WATER SHARING• ENVIRONMENTAL FLOWS

• CONSUMPTIVE USE

TERRESTRIALBIODIVERSITY

RIVERINE ECOSYSTEMHEALTH

TARGETS

CATCHMENTHEALTH


each of the four proposed priorities (see Box 3). The Basin SalinityManagement Strategy (see section 3.2.6) will be the first Basin-widestrategy developed within the context of the new integrated catchmentmanagement framework.

Box 3: A new Integrated Catchment Management Policy for thenext decade

During the last 10 years significant advances have been made intackling the resources management issues facing the Basin and inestablishing institutional arrangements to manage the naturalresources at catchment scale. However, with rising salinity levelsin the Basin’s rivers and a number of other concerns affecting theBasin’s catchments, the pace of these advances now needs to beaccelerated.

In response to these concerns, the draft Integrated CatchmentManagement Policy will propose a new approach to managingthe natural resources of the Basin. It proposes a ‘floor’ undercatchment health thereby protecting key values by defining alevel of health that must be maintained. With this approach,appropriate targets and timeframes would be set at Basin,catchment, sub-catchment and farm scales. Work in catchmentsto plan, implement and evaluate natural resources managementwould be given greater support, and stronger links will be madebetween catchment planning and land use planning.Accountability and reporting requirements would be determinedat each scale to help drive meaningful and positive change.

It is hoped the system of targets would send clear messagesabout the limits of resource capacity. This would help to definesensible options for balancing economic, environmental and socialaspirations. It is envisaged that the proposed framework will takeabout 10 years to build, requiring substantial government,community and industry commitment. If approved, this approachwill significantly test the capacities and determination of these


groups to manage the natural resource base for the benefit ofboth present and future generations.

Draft priorities proposed for target-setting (see Figure 4) include:

• water quality (salinity and nutrients);

• water sharing (including consumptive and in-streamrequirements);

• riverine ecosystem health; and

• terrestrial biodiversity.

The level of targets would be based on the nature andrequirements of the assets that stakeholders agree should beprotected. These include:

• environmental assets, such as wetlands, fish, birds, nativevegetation;

• economic assets, such as drinking water, productive land, builtinfrastructure, water for irrigation and stock, touristdestinations; and

• social assets, such as rural communities, cultural sites,recreational areas.

Under the proposed Integrated Catchment Management Policy,targets for each priority area outcome would be set for eachcatchment, and will be integrated to help signal the condition ofcatchment health. This integration will be essential for ensuringthat land and river managers do more than simply meet agreedtargets. It is only by looking at the overall picture that all theinteracting issues can be taken into account so that catchmenthealth is effectively protected.


3.2.2 HUMAN DIMENSION STRATEGY

Since November 1999, joint CAC–Commission workshops have acted as acatalyst for exploring the significance of the ‘human dimension’ of naturalresource management. This dimension (identified as the social,institutional, economic and cultural contexts of natural resourcemanagement) has historically been neglected. There is a growingrecognition that human relationships – whether they be social,institutional, economic or cultural – are complex and, more importantly,fundamental to the success or failure of sustainable natural resourcemanagement.

The Human Dimension Strategy, developed through a project board withthe assistance of an expert reference panel and the Communication andHuman Dimension Issues Working Group, was endorsed by the Commissionin November 1999. The development of the strategy signals the potentialfor significant changes in the activities and operations of the Murray-Darling Basin Initiative. The intent of the strategy is to maximise thepotential of the Initiative to utilise social and institutional inquiry. At thesame time, it needs to encourage the development of an Initiativemanagement approach that is responsive to all aspects of social, cultural,economic and institutional matters that are relevant to the ecologicallysustainable development and management of the Murray-Darling Basin.The strategy proposes the need for wide-ranging cultural change withinthe Initiative to maximise the potential of the Commission’s partnerships.

An implementation plan for the Human Dimension Strategy was developedin the first half of 2000 and will be considered by the Commission in July2000. The plan focuses on ways to achieve organisational change throughintegrating the values and behaviours for Initiative activities agreed by theCAC and Commission in November 1999 into policies and programs and theeveryday work experiences, decision-making and meeting processes of theInitiative. The plan focuses on four key areas:

• knowledge generation, dissemination and adoption;

• institutional development;

• strategic engagement; and

• building natural resource management sectoral capacity.


The activities proposed under the plan focus on the need for change andthe recognition that new ways of undertaking Initiative business arerequired to address issues now facing the Basin, including dryland salinity.A new Human Dimension Group, comprising representatives of theCommission, Commission Office and the CAC, is proposed to take over fromthe project board to facilitate the change process.

3.2.3 INITIATIVE COMMUNICATION STRATEGY

The Initiative Communication Strategy 2000–2002 was completed andapproved by the Commission in November 1999. The strategy provides anoverall framework for all current and future Initiative communicationactivities. It was based on extensive consultation with the Basin communityand direct input from the CAC and partner governments through theCommunication and Human Dimension Issues Working Group. The strategyemphasises the need to:

• recognise the role of communication in achieving the objectives of theInitiative;

• identify and foster strategic partnerships; and

• build on existing communications networks.

This is the first time that a comprehensive and agreed framework for thecommunication activities of all partners in the Initiative has been prepared.

In November 1999 the Commission approved a detailed guide, based on theInitiative Communication Strategy, for preparing a communication plan tohelp provide a common approach to communication activities by Initiativepartners. An overview of the communication needs of the partners asidentified through the consultation process was also prepared and madepublicly available. Both the guide and the summary of the consultation arebeing utilised by Initiative partners and by other natural resource managerswithin and outside the Basin.

In March 2000 the Commission approved an evaluation plan for thestrategy and a three-year implementation plan. The latter will be used bythe Commission Office for its communication activities under the strategy.Implementation commenced in early 2000. Initial activities includedworkshops with government partners to ‘map’ their communicationprograms and networks, and to promote use of the strategy and guide.


With the completion of the Initiative Communication Strategy, theevaluation plan and the implementation plan, the Commission closed theproject in March 2000. Responsibility for monitoring the implementation ofthe strategy and for evaluating its effectiveness, was given to theCommunication and Human Dimension Issues Working Group.

3.2.4 THE CAP

In 1995 the Ministerial Council decided to cap water diversions in theMurray-Darling Basin (see Box 4). This decision, now called ‘the Cap’, is oneof Council’s most important initiatives.

Box 4: What is the Cap?

‘The Cap’ is the balance struck by the Ministerial Council betweenthe significant economic and social benefits that have beenobtained from the development of the Basin’s water resources onthe one hand, and the environmental uses of water in the riverson the other. In most of the Basin, the Cap will limit future wateruse to the volume of water that would have been diverted under1993–94 levels of development. This does not mean the volume ofwater that was used in 1993–94. Rather, the Cap in any year is thevolume of water that would have been used with theinfrastructure (pumps, dams, channels, areas developed forirrigation, management rules and so on) that existed in 1993–94,assuming similar climatic and hydrologic conditions to thoseexperienced in the year in question. Thus, the Cap provides scopefor greater water use in certain years and lower use in other years.

The Cap itself does not attempt to reduce Basin diversions, merelyprevent them from increasing. New developments are possibleunder the Cap provided that the water for them is obtained byimproving water-use efficiency or by purchasing water fromexisting developments.

By limiting future growth in consumptive water use, the Cappromotes the sustainable use of the Basin’s resources by:

• preserving the existing security of supply for river valleys;


• helping maintain water quality;

• encouraging efficient use of water which reduces waterloggingand land salinisation; and

• preventing further deterioration of the flow regime for theenvironment.

The key tasks in each state for implementing the Cap are:

• defining and monitoring all diversions;

• detailing the Cap development conditions in each river valley;

• developing and calibrating the computer models which will beused to calculate the Cap target in each river valley at the endof each season;

• obtaining Commission endorsement that the calibrated rivervalley models are fair and accurate representations of theapproved Cap;

• streamlining the processes for collecting and collatingdiversion data and producing annual reports; and

• adjusting water allocation rules to ensure that diversions staywithin the Cap in all designated river valleys.

In November 1999, the Independent Audit Group reported on their annualreview of Cap implementation over the 1998–99 period. The groupconcluded that, for South Australia, diversions were within the Cap and, forVictoria, diversions were within acceptable bounds for Cap management.For the ACT, diversions were well below the options being considered for anACT Cap.

In Queensland the Independent Audit Group concluded that there hadbeen further significant growth in on-farm storages and in the waterdiverted into those storages, and that urgent action should be taken toestablish a regulatory environment that would enable Cap implementation,including appropriate controls over floodplain water harvesting.


In New South Wales the group concluded that diversions were withinacceptable bounds for Cap management throughout New South Walesexcept for those in the Barwon-Darling and the Lachlan, which exceededlong-term Cap estimates. It recommended that New South Wales shouldreport on the underlying reasons for excessive diversions on the Lachlanand Barwon-Darling, including management actions proposed to bringdiversions within Cap limits. As a result of these findings, a supplementaryaudit was performed on these valleys for the first time in February 2000 toaddress the audit group’s recommendation.

From this audit it was concluded that for 1998–1999, diversions in theBarwon-Darling valley were clearly in breach of the Cap. It was decided thatNew South Wales should report to the Ministerial Council (at its nextscheduled meeting in August 2000) on measures proposed to bringdiversions from these rivers within Cap limits. The additional informationprovided by New South Wales for the supplementary audit indicated thatthe Lachlan Valley was not in breach of the Cap.

Queensland and ACT Cap proposals

In 1999–2000, substantive progress was made in the development of Caparrangements in both Queensland and the ACT. In May and June 2000,Queensland’s draft water resource plans for the Condamine-Balonne,Moonie-Warrego and Paroo-Nebine catchments were released. The publicconsultation process on these draft plans and their subsequent finalisationwill allow the details of Cap arrangements in these valleys to bedetermined.

In an important development for the border rivers system, the Queenslandand New South Wales governments decided in November 1999 not tosupport increases in water use in the border rivers that will cause furtherdeterioration in the flow regime at Mungindi. The two governments alsodecided not to allow further growth in diversions in the regulated sectionsof the system. Using this decision as a guide, the Queensland Border RiversFlow Management Plan is expected to be finalised by July 2001.

The ACT submitted its proposal for a Cap to the Commission in May 2000.This proposal, and the Independent Audit Group’s assessment of theproposal, will form the basis of further negotiations in 2000–01 to achievean ACT Cap acceptable to all jurisdictions.


Review of the operation of the Cap

As part of the decision by the Ministerial Council to introduce a permanentBasin-wide Cap on diversions, a major review of the operation of the Capwas scheduled for 2000. This review has been a central feature of Capimplementation in 1999 and 2000 and is intended to improve Capimplementation across the Basin.

The review of the operation of the Cap had four components:

• ecological sustainability of rivers;

• economic and social impacts;

• equity; and

• implementation and compliance.

For each component, the Cap Project Board commissioned a specific reportdesigned to inform the review process. Building upon this knowledge, theboard developed a Draft Overview Report which was released in April 2000by the Ministerial Council for a period of public comment ending on10 July 2000. The Draft Overview Report will be modified to reflect

During the year a review of the operation of the Cap on diversions from theBasin’s rivers was undertaken and distributed for public comment. The reviewconsidered the Cap in relation to the ecological sustainability of rivers,economic and social impacts, equity and implementation and compliance.


comments received in this process and a final report on the review will bepresented to the Council in August 2000.

The review did not consider whether or not a Cap was needed. Its brief wasto assess the operation of the Cap and examine ways in which it could befurther refined to meet the needs of communities within the Basin. Thedecision to undertake the review of Cap operation emphasises theMinisterial Council’s commitment to the Cap. However, it was the view ofthe Council that a major policy initiative such as the Cap cannot beimplemented without a comprehensive review to address any matters thatmay not have been resolved in the initial phase of implementation.

Sustainable Rivers Audit

When the Cap on water diversions was initially introduced, the MinisterialCouncil agreed that a balance needed to be struck between consumptiveand instream uses of water in the Basin. The review of the operation of theCap highlighted the need to provide objective advice to the community onwhether the current flow regimes are a reasonable balance betweenconsumptive use and those flows necessary to maintain and sustainriverine environments.

As an initial response to the findings of the draft review of the operation ofthe Cap, the Ministerial Council decided to investigate the benefits ofconducting a regular Sustainable Rivers Audit. Such an audit will helpmonitor the environmental health of the Basin’s rivers and provide moreinformation to the community on the location and extent of degradation.The proposed Sustainable Rivers Audit is set to become an importantfeature of the Commission’s activities in future years. The Commission willconsider the outline of the Sustainable Rivers Audit at its meeting inJuly 2000.


3.2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL FLOWS AND WATER QUALITY FOR THERIVER MURRAY

The Commission recognises the urgent need to improve the environmentalcondition of the Basin’s river systems. A number of policies it hasimplemented in recent years are designed to achieve this goal. Theseinclude:

• the Salinity and Drainage Strategy;

• the Cap on further increases to water diversions;

• the annual entitlement of 100 gigalitres to the Barmah-Millewa forest;

• construction and upgrading of fish lifts on a number of majorstructures;

• changes to river and storage operations procedures; and

• substantial investment in research to assist river managers achievebetter environmental outcomes.

However, the Commission has recognised that these measures do not gofar enough. In 1998 it established a project board to develop acomprehensive Environmental Flows Management Plan for the RiverMurray which will be submitted to the Ministerial Council in 2002. Theproject board is being assisted by a technical working group that met twiceduring the year.

As part of its brief, the Environmental Flows Project Board initiated thedevelopment of water quality objectives and flow strategies for the Murray.These activities will help identify the trade-offs needed to balance the flowrequirements that will protect the Basin’s riverine systems as sustainableecological systems, against the costs that come from satisfying theeconomic, social and recreational benefits derived from over a century ofdevelopment.

The Commission is required to manage the Basin’s rivers in a way thatprotects a wide range of needs and interests, including those of agriculturalusers, industry, tourism and recreational activities, human consumers,cultural significance and the environment. It also recognises thatgroundwater contributions to streams through base flow can havesignificant impacts on stream water quality and quantity. In order toprovide the knowledge base needed to manage these interests in a way


that gives the best possible environmental outcomes, the Commissionreleased two publications in June 2000: Report of the River Murray ScientificPanel on Environmental Flows, and River Murray Barrages EnvironmentalFlows.

These reports were commissioned in 1997 from two independent scientificpanels to identify changes in river operations for the Murray and lowerDarling that would result in general improvements in the environment ofthese rivers. The first report took account of the geomorphology, riparianvegetation, macrophytes, invertebrates, floodplain ecology, fish habitat,algae and hydrology at specific sites along the length of the Murray, fromthe Mitta Mitta River above Dartmouth Dam to Murray Bridge in SouthAustralia. The second report examined the operation of the barrages andconsidered their impact on the environment of the Coorong and lowerMurray lakes.

The project board is considering the reports in combination with otherresearch to prepare an initial set of options for improved environmentalflows that can be implemented rapidly with minimal impact on existingriver users. The options, to be submitted to the Ministerial Council in early2001, will be a precursor to the overall Environmental Flows Strategy forthe Murray.

In August 1999 the Report on the Impact of the Barmah-Millewa Flood ofOctober 1998 and the First Use of the Barmah-Millewa Forest Allocation wassubmitted to the Barmah-Millewa Forum. This report examined theimpacts of the 1998 flood of the forest from its annual entitlement forenvironmental flows (see Box 5). The report offers valuable insight into thepractical aspects involved in managing environmental releases. The reportalso emphasised the need to have well established baselines andmonitoring programs against which the benefits of future flood events canbe compared.

In April 2000, the Commission released the Barmah-Millewa Forest WaterManagement Strategy. This strategy provides the framework for futuremanagement of the forest as a single entity. The Barmah-Millewa Forumcontinues to build on the annually funded program of research, works andmonitoring to assist it in maximising the benefit to the forests of futureflood operation and management.


Box 5: Barmah-Millewa Forest

The Barmah-Millewa Forest, which extends along either side ofthe River Murray upstream of Echuca, and which covers some70 000 hectares, contains a unique range of wetland habitats ofhigh environmental value. The Barmah section of the forest inVictoria has been declared a Ramsar wetland site of internationalsignificance.

In 1993 the Ministerial Council approved an annual entitlement of100 gigalitres of water (100 billion litres) to the Barmah-MillewaForest, provided equally from the water entitlements of NewSouth Wales and Victoria. This followed extensive publicconsultation undertaken as part of the development of a watermanagement strategy, a business plan and an annual operatingplan for the forest. Implementation of these strategies and plansis being carried out by the Barmah-Millewa Forum.

In October 1998 the Commission made its first use of thisenvironmental entitlement and released 100 gigalitres of storedwater from Hume Dam to supplement a minor flood alreadyoccurring in the forests as a result of increased flows from theOvens River.

3.2.6 SALINITY

Salinity has always been a major priority for the Commission. Itssignificance has been upgraded further by the release in October 1999 ofthe Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council’s Salinity Audit (see Box 6)and subsequent work to prepare a comprehensive draft SalinityManagement Plan for the Basin (which will be submitted to the Council inAugust 2000). The new Salinity Management Strategy will build on andincorporate the Salinity and Drainage Strategy that has been one of thegreat achievements of the first decade of the Murray Darling BasinInitiative. It includes recognition of the importance of groundwater trendsas a cause of increasing dryland salinity in many parts of the Basin. Carewas taken to coordinate its preparation with the salinity strategies being


prepared by each of the states. After the new strategy is finalised, theCommission will, for the first time, be in a position to manage the salinityimpacts of irrigation, dryland farming and natural sources in a coordinatedway.

Salinity and Drainage Strategy

The Salinity and Drainage Strategy of the Murray-Darling came into effecton 1 January 1988 and was formally adopted by the Ministerial Council inApril 1989. The strategy provides a framework for joint action by the NewSouth Wales, Victorian, South Australian and Commonwealth governmentsto effectively manage the problems of waterlogging and land salinisationin the irrigation districts of the Murray Valley in New South Wales andVictoria, and river salinity in the lower Murray River. The strategy is based ona balance between engineering (interception schemes which divert salinegroundwater that would otherwise flow into the river) and non-engineering (land and water management) solutions, which tackle bothriver salinity and land salinisation.

Under the strategy, no State is to construct works or approve any proposalthat will have an adverse impact on the salinity of the River Murray unlessit has previously earned ‘salinity credits’ by contributing to salinitymitigation works. The Commission maintains a register of various actionsundertaken that increase or decrease river salinity, and determines the netsalinity credits available to New South Wales and Victoria.

During 1999–2000, the Commission agreed to take over responsibility fromVictoria for management of the Barr Creek–Lake Tutchewop DrainageDiversion Scheme and to operate it to maximise salinity benefits for theRiver Murray. This action will provide 5.95 EC salinity credits. Consequently,total salinity credits achieved to date from the joint schemes developedunder the strategy are now 67 EC against the target of 80 EC. In return forfunding these joint schemes, New South Wales and Victoria have beenpermitted to undertake new drainage works for irrigation purposes with acombined salinity impact of 25 EC.

Review of the Salinity and Drainage Strategy

In 1998 a review of the Salinity and Drainage Strategy was initiated inresponse to evidence suggesting that the expected increase in River Murraysalinity from dryland areas would be greater than the estimates made


when the Strategy was first developed. As part of the review, a reportsummarising actions undertaken during the first 10 years of the strategywas released concurrently with the Salinity Audit in October 1999. To assistwith the review, a range of studies were completed during the year. Basedon these studies, the review concluded that the strategy has beenextremely successful in reducing salinity in the River Murray, as measuredat Morgan. Underpinning the success of the strategy has been clearidentification of the problem, a specific and clear statement of objectives,accountability arrangements and action plans to achieve those objectives.

Salinity mitigation works undertaken jointly through the Salinity andDrainage Strategy and by the states prior to and after adoption of thestrategy, have led to average salinity for the River Murray at Morgandecreasing from 721 EC for the pre-strategy period (1975–1985) to 569 ECfor the post-strategy period (1993–1999). In addition, salinity at Morgan isnow below 800 EC for more than 90 per cent of the time compared to60 per cent for the pre-strategy period.

The review of the Salinity and Drainage Strategy also concluded that thereis scope for improvement in monitoring, reporting and documentingactions accountable under the strategy and in the management of the saltinterception schemes.

Box 6: Salinity Audit key points

Within the Murray-Darling Basin, under current managementsystems and in the absence of substantial intervention:

• three to five-million hectares of land will become salinised inthe next 100 years, as a result of rising groundwater tables, tothe extent that there will be substantial impacts on waterquality, productivity, the environment and built infrastructure;

• salinity in the lower Murray will increase by approximately50 per cent during the next 50 years;

• salt loads in the Macquarie, Namoi, Lachlan, Loddon and Avocacatchments will more than double during the next 50 years;

continued over page


• salt damage to agricultural productivity and infrastructure inthe Basin (such as roads and buildings) will increase to anestimated $1000 million a year during the next 100 years;

• there will be serious impacts on major wetlands such asMacquarie Marshes, the Great Cumbung Swamp, the Avocamarshes and the Chowilla wetlands.

Much of the salt affecting the Basin’s major rivers is coming fromsmall so-called local systems on the northern slopes of the GreatDividing Range in Victoria and the western slopes in New SouthWales. Although the recharge and discharge sites of these localsystems are close together, a large proportion of the salt that theydischarge to streams travels hundreds of kilometres with asignificant proportion reaching the lower Murray.

More than half of the salt mobilised in the Basin does not getexported through the rivers and out to sea. It is stored elsewherein the landscape, especially in irrigation districts and floodplainwetlands.

While irrigation areas are potentially the source of large volumesof salt, effective

Date post:	08-Feb-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE ......It includes the annual report of the Community...

Documents